Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.817 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68) | 0.730 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.431, 0.175 | 0.408 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.038 | 0.138 | -0.309, 0.233 | 0.785 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.302 | 0.199 | -0.088, 0.692 | 0.131 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.270 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.827, 0.667 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.269 | 0.259 | -0.778, 0.239 | 0.300 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.07 | 0.375 | 0.336, 1.80 | 0.005 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.504 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.712 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.638 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.629 | 0.416 | -0.186, 1.44 | 0.132 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.25 | 0.601 | 0.072, 2.43 | 0.039 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.185 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.261 | -0.480, 0.544 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.012 | 0.182 | -0.345, 0.369 | 0.949 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 0.263 | -0.190, 0.841 | 0.217 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.291 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.412 | -0.463, 1.15 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.385 | 0.266 | -0.136, 0.906 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.418 | 0.384 | -0.334, 1.17 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.545, 0.913 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.314 | 0.216 | -0.109, 0.738 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.324 | 0.313 | -0.289, 0.936 | 0.302 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.304 | -0.987, 0.203 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.025 | 0.218 | -0.403, 0.452 | 0.910 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.808 | 0.315 | 0.191, 1.43 | 0.011 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.876 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.239 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.299 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.42 | 0.689 | -2.77, -0.066 | 0.041 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.018 | 0.996 | -1.93, 1.97 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.408 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.577 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.337 | 0.358 | -0.366, 1.04 | 0.349 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.318 | 0.518 | -0.697, 1.33 | 0.540 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.514 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.727 | -0.586, 2.27 | 0.249 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.288 | 0.444 | -0.582, 1.16 | 0.517 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.337 | 0.642 | -0.921, 1.59 | 0.600 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.642 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.908 | -0.412, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 0.506 | 0.114, 2.10 | 0.030 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.013 | 0.732 | -1.45, 1.42 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.334 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.472 | -0.574, 1.28 | 0.457 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.304 | 0.270 | -0.225, 0.833 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.041 | 0.390 | -0.724, 0.806 | 0.916 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.542 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.766 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.845 | 0.449 | -0.035, 1.72 | 0.061 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.192 | 0.649 | -1.08, 1.46 | 0.768 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.628 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.888 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.04 | 0.494 | 0.067, 2.00 | 0.037 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.141 | 0.715 | -1.54, 1.26 | 0.844 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.390 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.552 | -0.322, 1.84 | 0.170 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.759 | 0.357 | 0.059, 1.46 | 0.035 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.495 | 0.516 | -0.517, 1.51 | 0.339 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.050, 1.44 | 0.037 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.132 | 0.220 | -0.563, 0.299 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.481 | 0.318 | -0.141, 1.10 | 0.131 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.403 | -0.398, 1.18 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.352 | 0.242 | -0.123, 0.826 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.341 | 0.350 | -0.344, 1.03 | 0.330 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.416 | -0.120, 1.51 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.275 | 0.233 | -0.181, 0.731 | 0.239 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.275 | 0.337 | -0.385, 0.934 | 0.415 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.539 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.762 | -0.406, 2.58 | 0.154 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.639 | 0.408 | -0.161, 1.44 | 0.119 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.605 | 0.590 | -0.552, 1.76 | 0.307 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.818 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.157 | -3.48, 1.05 | 0.294 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.851 | 0.650 | -2.12, 0.424 | 0.192 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.49 | 0.940 | -3.33, 0.353 | 0.115 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.447 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.632 | -0.231, 2.25 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.358 | 0.349 | -0.325, 1.04 | 0.306 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.550 | 0.504 | -0.438, 1.54 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.363 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.513 | 0.002, 2.01 | 0.050 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.496 | 0.312 | -0.116, 1.11 | 0.114 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.405 | 0.451 | -0.479, 1.29 | 0.371 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.771 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.090 | -0.120, 4.15 | 0.065 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.854 | 0.604 | -0.330, 2.04 | 0.159 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.949 | 0.873 | -0.763, 2.66 | 0.279 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.140 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.198 | -0.460, 0.316 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.205 | 0.169 | -0.536, 0.125 | 0.225 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.303 | 0.243 | -0.173, 0.779 | 0.214 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.311 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.439 | -0.141, 1.58 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.595 | 0.326 | -0.045, 1.23 | 0.070 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.628 | 0.471 | -1.55, 0.295 | 0.184 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.533 | -0.581, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.577 | 0.348 | -0.105, 1.26 | 0.099 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.371 | 0.503 | -0.614, 1.36 | 0.461 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.618 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.874 | -0.528, 2.90 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.18 | 0.587 | 0.030, 2.33 | 0.046 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.273 | 0.847 | -1.93, 1.39 | 0.748 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.401 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.568 | -0.584, 1.64 | 0.353 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.682 | 0.340 | 0.015, 1.35 | 0.046 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.127 | 0.492 | -0.836, 1.09 | 0.796 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.224 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.317 | -0.629, 0.613 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.195 | 0.247 | -0.288, 0.679 | 0.429 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.544 | 0.356 | -0.153, 1.24 | 0.128 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.390 | -0.853, 0.677 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.447 | 0.286 | -1.01, 0.114 | 0.120 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.519 | 0.413 | -1.33, 0.291 | 0.211 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.432 | 0.268 | -0.957, 0.094 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.640 | 0.388 | -1.40, 0.120 | 0.100 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.332 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.470 | -1.00, 0.841 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.589 | 0.272 | -1.12, -0.055 | 0.032 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.201 | 0.394 | -0.972, 0.571 | 0.611 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.333 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.471 | -0.516, 1.33 | 0.387 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.394 | 0.270 | -0.923, 0.136 | 0.146 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.627 | 0.391 | -1.39, 0.139 | 0.110 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.933 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.320 | -2.03, 3.14 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.41 | 0.690 | -2.77, -0.062 | 0.042 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.41 | 0.997 | -3.36, 0.548 | 0.160 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(426) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(426) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.23], t(426) = -0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69], t(426) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(426) = 66.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(426) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.24], t(426) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [0.34, 1.80], t(426) = 2.86, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.11, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(426) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(426) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.44], t(426) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.07, 2.43], t(426) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(426) = 62.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(426) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37], t(426) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 5.72e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.84], t(426) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(426) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(426) = 0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.91], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.17], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(426) = 49.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(426) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.74], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.94], t(426) = 1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(426) = 46.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(426) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.45], t(426) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.19, 1.43], t(426) = 2.57, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(426) = 35.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(426) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.07], t(426) = -2.06, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -6.83e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.97], t(426) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 1.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(426) = 54.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(426) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.04], t(426) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.33], t(426) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(426) = 47.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(426) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.16], t(426) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.59], t(426) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(426) = 30.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(426) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.11, 2.10], t(426) = 2.19, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.42], t(426) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(426) = 31.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(426) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.83], t(426) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.81], t(426) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.07, 16.19], t(426) = 27.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.57e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(426) = -7.27e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -3.70e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.72], t(426) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-5.85e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.46], t(426) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(426) = 34.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(426) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.07, 2.00], t(426) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [9.73e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.26], t(426) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(426) = 41.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(426) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.06, 1.46], t(426) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.51], t(426) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(426) = 52.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(426) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.30], t(426) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.10], t(426) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(426) = 58.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(426) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.83], t(426) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.03], t(426) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(426) = 42.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(426) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.73], t(426) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.93], t(426) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(426) = 54.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(426) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.44], t(426) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.76], t(426) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(426) = 34.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(426) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.42], t(426) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.35], t(426) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(426) = 30.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(426) = 1.60, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.04], t(426) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.54], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(426) = 42.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [2.48e-03, 2.01], t(426) = 1.96, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [6.05e-04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.11], t(426) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.29], t(426) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(426) = 37.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(426) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.04], t(426) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.66], t(426) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(426) = 91.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(426) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.13], t(426) = -1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78], t(426) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(426) = 46.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(426) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.23], t(426) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(426) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(426) = 34.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(426) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.26], t(426) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.36], t(426) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(426) = 44.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(426) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.03, 2.33], t(426) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [4.35e-03, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.39], t(426) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.63], t(426) = 46.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.64], t(426) = 0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.02, 1.35], t(426) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [3.41e-03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.09], t(426) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(426) = 64.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(426) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.68], t(426) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.24], t(426) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(426) = 42.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(426) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.11], t(426) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.29], t(426) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(426) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(426) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.09], t(426) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.12], t(426) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(426) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(426) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12, -0.05], t(426) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.57], t(426) = -0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(426) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(426) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.14], t(426) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.14], t(426) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(426) = 31.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.03, 3.14], t(426) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.06], t(426) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, -5.97e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.55], t(426) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,381.826 | 1,394.031 | -687.913 | 1,375.826 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,384.334 | 1,408.744 | -686.167 | 1,372.334 | 3.492 | 3 | 0.322 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,098.613 | 2,110.819 | -1,046.307 | 2,092.613 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,094.129 | 2,118.540 | -1,041.065 | 2,082.129 | 10.484 | 3 | 0.015 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,602.769 | 2,614.975 | -1,298.385 | 2,596.769 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,587.337 | 2,611.748 | -1,287.669 | 2,575.337 | 21.432 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,772.633 | 1,784.838 | -883.316 | 1,766.633 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,775.057 | 1,799.468 | -881.529 | 1,763.057 | 3.575 | 3 | 0.311 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,150.958 | 2,163.163 | -1,072.479 | 2,144.958 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,145.036 | 2,169.447 | -1,066.518 | 2,133.036 | 11.922 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,029.403 | 2,041.608 | -1,011.702 | 2,023.403 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,024.773 | 2,049.183 | -1,006.386 | 2,012.773 | 10.631 | 3 | 0.014 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,920.985 | 1,933.191 | -957.493 | 1,914.985 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,913.597 | 1,938.007 | -950.798 | 1,901.597 | 13.388 | 3 | 0.004 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,052.638 | 3,064.843 | -1,523.319 | 3,046.638 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,049.599 | 3,074.010 | -1,518.800 | 3,037.599 | 9.038 | 3 | 0.029 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,422.330 | 2,434.536 | -1,208.165 | 2,416.330 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,424.338 | 2,448.748 | -1,206.169 | 2,412.338 | 3.993 | 3 | 0.262 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,617.471 | 2,629.676 | -1,305.736 | 2,611.471 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,619.280 | 2,643.690 | -1,303.640 | 2,607.280 | 4.191 | 3 | 0.242 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,787.392 | 2,799.597 | -1,390.696 | 2,781.392 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,782.167 | 2,806.578 | -1,385.084 | 2,770.167 | 11.225 | 3 | 0.011 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,223.058 | 2,235.264 | -1,108.529 | 2,217.058 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,225.663 | 2,250.073 | -1,106.831 | 2,213.663 | 3.395 | 3 | 0.335 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,653.394 | 2,665.600 | -1,323.697 | 2,647.394 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,651.139 | 2,675.550 | -1,319.570 | 2,639.139 | 8.255 | 3 | 0.041 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,763.713 | 2,775.919 | -1,378.857 | 2,757.713 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,762.374 | 2,786.785 | -1,375.187 | 2,750.374 | 7.339 | 3 | 0.062 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,411.713 | 2,423.919 | -1,202.857 | 2,405.713 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,399.125 | 2,423.535 | -1,193.562 | 2,387.125 | 18.589 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,007.036 | 2,019.241 | -1,000.518 | 2,001.036 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,002.731 | 2,027.141 | -995.365 | 1,990.731 | 10.305 | 3 | 0.016 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,109.511 | 2,121.716 | -1,051.755 | 2,103.511 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,104.253 | 2,128.664 | -1,046.126 | 2,092.253 | 11.258 | 3 | 0.010 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,113.540 | 2,125.746 | -1,053.770 | 2,107.540 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,109.156 | 2,133.567 | -1,048.578 | 2,097.156 | 10.384 | 3 | 0.016 |
els | null | 3 | 2,625.613 | 2,637.818 | -1,309.807 | 2,619.613 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,617.765 | 2,642.176 | -1,302.883 | 2,605.765 | 13.848 | 3 | 0.003 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,003.871 | 3,016.076 | -1,498.935 | 2,997.871 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,994.065 | 3,018.476 | -1,491.033 | 2,982.065 | 15.806 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,470.476 | 2,482.681 | -1,232.238 | 2,464.476 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,465.378 | 2,489.788 | -1,226.689 | 2,453.378 | 11.098 | 3 | 0.011 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,326.025 | 2,338.230 | -1,160.013 | 2,320.025 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,316.479 | 2,340.889 | -1,152.239 | 2,304.479 | 15.547 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,946.928 | 2,959.133 | -1,470.464 | 2,940.928 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,937.932 | 2,962.342 | -1,462.966 | 2,925.932 | 14.996 | 3 | 0.002 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,584.675 | 1,596.881 | -789.338 | 1,578.675 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,588.787 | 1,613.197 | -788.393 | 1,576.787 | 1.889 | 3 | 0.596 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,240.531 | 2,252.736 | -1,117.265 | 2,234.531 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,241.814 | 2,266.224 | -1,114.907 | 2,229.814 | 4.717 | 3 | 0.194 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,376.124 | 2,388.329 | -1,185.062 | 2,370.124 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,371.347 | 2,395.758 | -1,179.674 | 2,359.347 | 10.776 | 3 | 0.013 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,808.726 | 2,820.931 | -1,401.363 | 2,802.726 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,806.855 | 2,831.266 | -1,397.428 | 2,794.855 | 7.871 | 3 | 0.049 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,403.310 | 2,415.515 | -1,198.655 | 2,397.310 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,399.152 | 2,423.563 | -1,193.576 | 2,387.152 | 10.157 | 3 | 0.017 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,975.336 | 1,987.541 | -984.668 | 1,969.336 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,972.029 | 1,996.439 | -980.014 | 1,960.029 | 9.307 | 3 | 0.025 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,143.014 | 2,155.219 | -1,068.507 | 2,137.014 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,135.718 | 2,160.128 | -1,061.859 | 2,123.718 | 13.296 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,218.918 | 2,231.123 | -1,106.459 | 2,212.918 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,208.064 | 2,232.474 | -1,098.032 | 2,196.064 | 16.854 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,231.728 | 2,243.933 | -1,112.864 | 2,225.728 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,225.406 | 2,249.817 | -1,106.703 | 2,213.406 | 12.322 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,233.690 | 2,245.895 | -1,113.845 | 2,227.690 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,224.536 | 2,248.946 | -1,106.268 | 2,212.536 | 15.154 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,097.012 | 3,109.217 | -1,545.506 | 3,091.012 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,084.007 | 3,108.417 | -1,536.003 | 3,072.007 | 19.005 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.408 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 95 | 3.16 ± 1.21 | 0.038 | 87 | 3.34 ± 1.20 | -0.266 | 0.332 | -0.175 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 95 | 17.61 ± 2.87 | 0.147 | 87 | 18.60 ± 2.83 | -0.438 | 0.020 | -0.542 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.63 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.63 | 0.638 | -0.115 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 95 | 30.32 ± 5.26 | -0.216 | 87 | 31.90 ± 5.16 | -0.645 | 0.041 | -0.544 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.07 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.07 | 0.903 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 95 | 11.64 ± 1.97 | -0.009 | 87 | 11.99 ± 1.95 | -0.262 | 0.220 | -0.278 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.26 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.26 | 0.404 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 95 | 17.57 ± 3.08 | -0.206 | 87 | 18.33 ± 3.03 | -0.430 | 0.093 | -0.408 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.121 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 95 | 13.46 ± 2.75 | -0.208 | 87 | 13.97 ± 2.70 | -0.421 | 0.209 | -0.335 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.198 | 0.254 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 95 | 9.98 ± 2.30 | -0.016 | 87 | 10.39 ± 2.28 | -0.540 | 0.221 | -0.270 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.79 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.79 | 0.299 | 0.267 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 95 | 30.08 ± 9.09 | 0.294 | 87 | 28.81 ± 8.92 | 0.290 | 0.342 | 0.264 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 95 | 22.40 ± 4.29 | -0.134 | 87 | 22.71 ± 4.22 | -0.260 | 0.624 | -0.123 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.75 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.75 | 0.249 | -0.270 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 95 | 24.79 ± 5.40 | -0.093 | 87 | 25.97 ± 5.31 | -0.201 | 0.139 | -0.378 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.18 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.18 | 0.133 | -0.386 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 95 | 20.77 ± 6.67 | -0.312 | 87 | 22.13 ± 6.54 | -0.309 | 0.167 | -0.383 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.74 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.74 | 0.457 | -0.186 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 95 | 10.95 ± 3.48 | -0.161 | 87 | 11.35 ± 3.41 | -0.183 | 0.442 | -0.208 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 95 | 15.97 ± 5.66 | -0.269 | 87 | 16.16 ± 5.56 | -0.330 | 0.818 | -0.061 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.02 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.02 | 0.719 | -0.093 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 95 | 22.59 ± 6.52 | -0.300 | 87 | 22.77 ± 6.39 | -0.259 | 0.852 | -0.052 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.36 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.36 | 0.170 | -0.302 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 95 | 16.94 ± 4.13 | -0.302 | 87 | 18.19 ± 4.07 | -0.499 | 0.040 | -0.499 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.80 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.80 | 0.037 | -0.482 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 95 | 13.04 ± 2.63 | 0.086 | 87 | 14.26 ± 2.59 | -0.226 | 0.002 | -0.794 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.332 | -0.231 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 95 | 17.11 ± 2.99 | -0.207 | 87 | 17.85 ± 2.94 | -0.408 | 0.096 | -0.432 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.096 | -0.427 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 95 | 12.68 ± 3.06 | -0.169 | 87 | 13.65 ± 3.00 | -0.337 | 0.031 | -0.596 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.02 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.02 | 0.154 | -0.381 | ||
els | 2nd | 95 | 29.81 ± 5.57 | -0.224 | 87 | 31.50 ± 5.46 | -0.436 | 0.039 | -0.593 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.15 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.15 | 0.294 | 0.267 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 95 | 27.03 ± 8.51 | 0.187 | 87 | 24.32 ± 8.34 | 0.514 | 0.031 | 0.595 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.00 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.00 | 0.112 | -0.414 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 95 | 14.20 ± 4.64 | -0.147 | 87 | 15.76 ± 4.54 | -0.372 | 0.023 | -0.639 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.06 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.06 | 0.050 | -0.461 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 95 | 15.82 ± 3.80 | -0.226 | 87 | 17.24 ± 3.74 | -0.411 | 0.012 | -0.645 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.62 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.62 | 0.065 | -0.477 | ||
shs | 2nd | 95 | 30.02 ± 8.00 | -0.202 | 87 | 32.99 ± 7.84 | -0.427 | 0.012 | -0.702 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.57 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.57 | 0.717 | 0.060 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 95 | 12.59 ± 1.54 | 0.170 | 87 | 12.83 ± 1.53 | -0.081 | 0.311 | -0.191 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.47 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.47 | 0.102 | -0.312 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 95 | 14.95 ± 3.34 | -0.257 | 87 | 15.05 ± 3.32 | 0.014 | 0.852 | -0.040 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.21 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.21 | 0.385 | -0.189 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 95 | 13.73 ± 3.99 | -0.236 | 87 | 14.56 ± 3.93 | -0.387 | 0.156 | -0.341 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.91 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.91 | 0.176 | -0.286 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 95 | 28.69 ± 6.56 | -0.285 | 87 | 29.60 ± 6.48 | -0.220 | 0.347 | -0.220 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.49 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.49 | 0.353 | -0.221 | ||
empower | 2nd | 95 | 19.53 ± 4.20 | -0.286 | 87 | 20.19 ± 4.13 | -0.339 | 0.290 | -0.275 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.50 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.50 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 95 | 14.56 ± 2.43 | -0.111 | 87 | 15.09 ± 2.41 | -0.422 | 0.136 | -0.306 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.822 | 0.043 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 95 | 11.34 ± 2.96 | 0.221 | 87 | 10.74 ± 2.94 | 0.477 | 0.167 | 0.300 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.119 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 95 | 9.97 ± 3.39 | 0.230 | 87 | 9.55 ± 3.33 | 0.570 | 0.405 | 0.221 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.71 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.71 | 0.865 | 0.042 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 95 | 9.59 ± 3.47 | 0.309 | 87 | 9.31 ± 3.40 | 0.414 | 0.582 | 0.147 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.73 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.73 | 0.387 | -0.216 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 95 | 8.32 ± 3.47 | 0.208 | 87 | 8.10 ± 3.41 | 0.540 | 0.668 | 0.116 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.43 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.43 | 0.676 | -0.115 | ||
sss | 2nd | 95 | 27.87 ± 9.63 | 0.294 | 87 | 27.02 ± 9.42 | 0.586 | 0.546 | 0.177 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(390.68) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)
2st
t(421.05) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.53)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(325.14) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(389.46) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.82)
ras_confidence
1st
t(302.20) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(365.03) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.07 to 3.11)
ras_willingness
1st
t(329.65) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)
2st
t(393.13) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.93)
ras_goal
1st
t(316.20) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)
2st
t(381.19) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.65)
ras_reliance
1st
t(301.59) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(364.23) = 1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.30)
ras_domination
1st
t(335.33) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(397.31) = 1.22, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.08)
symptom
1st
t(296.53) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(357.17) = -0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.90 to 1.36)
slof_work
1st
t(310.44) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)
2st
t(375.06) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st
t(307.97) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(372.21) = 1.48, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.74)
satisfaction
1st
t(296.76) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)
2st
t(357.50) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57 to 3.28)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(299.61) = 0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(361.55) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.40)
mhc_social
1st
t(302.56) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(365.50) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.83)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(296.59) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(357.25) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.06)
resilisnce
1st
t(316.66) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)
2st
t(381.65) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.45)
social_provision
1st
t(310.25) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(374.84) = 3.16, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.99)
els_value_living
1st
t(305.67) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(369.45) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.60)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(297.14) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)
2st
t(358.06) = 2.16, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.85)
els
1st
t(292.60) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(351.22) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.08 to 3.30)
social_connect
1st
t(297.63) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(358.77) = -2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.16 to -0.25)
shs_agency
1st
t(295.61) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)
2st
t(355.83) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.90)
shs_pathway
1st
t(307.46) = 1.96, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)
2st
t(371.61) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.51)
shs
1st
t(296.14) = 1.85, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)
2st
t(356.61) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.65 to 5.28)
esteem
1st
t(376.64) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(417.16) = 1.01, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.68)
mlq_search
1st
t(342.42) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(401.93) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.06)
mlq_presence
1st
t(318.08) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.51)
2st
t(383.05) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.99)
mlq
1st
t(322.78) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(387.42) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.81)
empower
1st
t(305.52) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.64)
2st
t(369.25) = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.87)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(353.61) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(408.04) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.24)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(339.85) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(400.33) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.25)
sss_affective
1st
t(302.23) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(365.07) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.56)
sss_behavior
1st
t(301.32) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)
2st
t(363.87) = -0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.72)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(299.94) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(362.00) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.78)
sss
1st
t(290.15) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(347.29) = -0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.63 to 1.92)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(220.80) = 1.84, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.55)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(202.18) = 2.96, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(195.90) = 4.33, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.02 to 2.74)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(203.40) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.71)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(199.75) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.35)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(195.73) = 2.82, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.08)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(204.94) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.28)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(194.32) = -1.94, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.02)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(198.17) = 1.75, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.39)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(197.49) = 1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.54)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(194.38) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(195.18) = 1.22, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(196.00) = 2.21, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.96)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(194.34) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.91)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(199.87) = 3.37, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.99)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(198.12) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(196.86) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(194.49) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(193.22) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.09)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(194.63) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-3.68 to -1.00)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(194.07) = 2.49, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.63)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(197.35) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.54)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(194.21) = 2.86, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.56 to 3.05)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(216.48) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.44)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(206.87) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.64)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(200.26) = 2.61, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(201.54) = 1.48, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.11)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(196.81) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(209.94) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.25)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(206.17) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.38)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(195.91) = -3.82, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.52)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(195.65) = -2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.35 to -0.23)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(195.27) = -3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.46)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(192.53) = -3.91, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.24 to -1.40)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(211.16) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.23)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(196.88) = -1.04, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.24)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(192.10) = 1.51, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.45)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(197.81) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.37)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(195.03) = 1.45, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.91)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(191.97) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.74)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(198.99) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.46)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(190.90) = -2.05, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.78 to -0.06)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(193.83) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.04)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(193.31) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.16)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(190.95) = 2.18, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.11)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(191.55) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.84)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(192.18) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.73)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(190.91) = 2.09, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.01)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(195.12) = 2.12, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.46)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(193.79) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.30)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(192.83) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.83)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(191.03) = 1.18, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.73)
els
1st vs 2st
t(190.06) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.45)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(191.13) = -1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.43)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(190.71) = 1.03, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.05)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(193.20) = 1.59, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.11)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(190.82) = 1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.05)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(207.82) = -1.22, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.13)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(200.46) = 1.82, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.24)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(195.42) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.26)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(196.39) = 2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.34)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(192.80) = 2.00, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.35)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(202.80) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.68)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(199.92) = -1.56, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.12)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(192.11) = -1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.10)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(191.92) = -2.16, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.13 to -0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(191.62) = -1.46, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.14)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(189.54) = -2.05, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.77 to -0.05)